Fluoridation for Christchurch

Press, 2 September 1977, Page 12

Fluoridation for Christchurch

The reluctance of candidates for office In the forthcoming local body elections to commit themselves to fluoridation of the deficient water supplies of the greater part of metropolitan Christchurch is understandable, but deplorable. Since New Zealand’s first major fluoridation experiment—in Hastings in 1954—most other large centres have Installed the equipment necessary to add to their communal water supplies the miniscule quantities of fluoride required for dental health. Now 64 per per cent of the country’s population Supplied from communal sources uses fluoridated water. In Canterbury—thanks to the pusallinimity of successive councils (except Waimairi County) in the Christchurch urban area—only 26 per cent of the population enjoys this protection, which in many parts of the world is afforded by the natural supply of water

The protection is especially important for children. Controlled experiments have shown that the incidence of dental caries in the teeth of children aged 10 who have drunk fluoridated water since birth is reduced by 55 per cent. For children aged six the reduction is 84 per cent. Children aged six have a much better chance of immunity from dental caries if they have drunk fluoridated water: 21 per cent of these children who have drunk fluoridated water have been found to be free from dental decay; only 3 per cent of children aged six enjoy this advantage if they drink unfluoridated water.

The dental and statistical evidence Is overwhelming In spite of the fears of its opponents, no harmful side-effects of fluoridation have ever been proved.

Indeed, many communities—in both civilised and primitive societies —show no evidence of health hazards from drinking water naturally containing many times the fluoride added to the supplies in most New Zealand towns and cities.

The objection to fluoridation on the ground of cost is of doubtful validity. If the Department of Health, tiring of the intransigence of Christchurch, were to recommend to the Government that extra levies were to be imposed on local bodies which refused to fluoridate water supplies, the costs of not fluoridating the water would become apparent The obvious cost of providing extra dental nurses in Christchurch schools outside the Waimairi area could be established readily enough: there might be more room for debate on how to assess the unnecessary suffering inflicted on a generation of Christchurch youngsters. The current batch of candidates for the Christchurch Mayoralty and City Council are, perhaps, no more to blame than their predecessors for dodging the issue. Yet they probably over-estimate the political damage that a wellmeaning, vociferous, but misguided minority could inflict. Bold civic action in Ashburton (1966), Timaru (1973), and Hokitika (1975) aroused howls of protest in each area at the time of the introduction of fluoridation. But the civic leaders in those centres survived the protests, and have already earned some claim to posterity—and, perhaps, the grudging thanks of parents who were once indifferent or opposed to fluoridation. Can aspirants for office in Christchurch not learn from the experiences of their counterparts in smaller but more enlightened centres?